Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats

[Fighting for kids]

Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats

October 17, 2003





BY JACK KRESNAK
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to help
get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no financial
help from absent parents.

In the state's six largest counties, about 40,000 parents each owe more than
$40,000 in overdue child support. But only a few hundred of them are facing
criminal charges.

That will change, Cox said.

"This isn't some social faux pas or breach of etiquette," Cox said. "This is
a crime."

Under the PayKids initiative, the attorney general will use 39 billboards, a
Web site, www.paykids.com, and a toll-free phone number to help parents
collect child support while educating the public at the same time. The phone
number is 866-729-5437.

Cox has also created a child-support division with a team of special
assistant attorneys general to help prosecute thousands of criminal cases in
counties other than Wayne in which parents owe at least $40,000 in
court-ordered child support.

In Wayne County, Cox's office will prosecute cases in which more than
$100,000 is owed, while County Prosecutor Mike Duggan's office will pursue
child-support violators who owe more than $5,000 in child support as long as
the children's cases are still active through the county's Friend of the
Court.

In Michigan, Cox said, more than $7 billion is owed by child-support
violators, $3 billion of that to Michigan taxpayers who have supported the
children through welfare programs.

Since April, Cox said, his division has arrested 54 people, issued 95 arrest
warrants and collected more than $725,000 for Michigan children. Duggan said
his office has prosecuted 820 violators this year and collected $908,000 for
children.

The PayKids initiative is being funded by corporate sponsors including
General Motors Corp., the bridge-and-trucking company Centra, the Michigan
Hospital Association and the Michigan Medical Society. The nonprofit
initiative is expected to raise more than $500,000 in its first year.

Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement
of Support (ACES), a national organization based in Ann Arbor, praised Cox
for his efforts.

Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent
has."

[Melvin Gamble]

Isn't it strange...

Fighting for kids wrote:
>
> Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
>
> October 17, 2003
>
> BY JACK KRESNAK
> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>
> Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to help
> get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no financial
> help from absent parents.
>
> In the state's six largest counties, about 40,000 parents each owe more than
> $40,000 in overdue child support. But only a few hundred of them are facing
> criminal charges.
>
> That will change, Cox said.
>
> "This isn't some social faux pas or breach of etiquette," Cox said. "This is
> a crime."
>
> Under the PayKids initiative, the attorney general will use 39 billboards, a
> Web site, www.paykids.com, and a toll-free phone number to help parents
> collect child support while educating the public at the same time. The phone
> number is 866-729-5437.
>
> Cox has also created a child-support division with a team of special
> assistant attorneys general to help prosecute thousands of criminal cases in
> counties other than Wayne in which parents owe at least $40,000 in
> court-ordered child support.
>
> In Wayne County, Cox's office will prosecute cases in which more than
> $100,000 is owed, while County Prosecutor Mike Duggan's office will pursue
> child-support violators who owe more than $5,000 in child support as long as
> the children's cases are still active through the county's Friend of the
> Court.
>
> In Michigan, Cox said, more than $7 billion is owed by child-support
> violators, $3 billion of that to Michigan taxpayers who have supported the
> children through welfare programs.

.... that the parents these same kids lived with - who also failed to
prevent them from needing the assistance of the taxpayers - will never
be charged with paying back $$$ that went to the childrens' needs....OR
THE DOLLARS THEY GOT FOR THEMSELVES... Isn't that strange????

> Since April, Cox said, his division has arrested 54 people, issued 95 arrest
> warrants and collected more than $725,000 for Michigan children. Duggan said
> his office has prosecuted 820 violators this year and collected $908,000 for
> children.
>
> The PayKids initiative is being funded by corporate sponsors including
> General Motors Corp.,

AAHHHHH....this is the famous "collect it whether they owe it or not"
program...

> the bridge-and-trucking company Centra, the Michigan
> Hospital Association and the Michigan Medical Society.

Sounds like a list of companies with their hands in the state's pockets,
just like those custodial parents who dipped into the state's pockets
and now want the OTHER parent to pay the state back....

> The nonprofit
> initiative is expected to raise more than $500,000 in its first year.
>
> Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement
> of Support (ACES), a national organization based in Ann Arbor, praised Cox
> for his efforts.
>
> Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes
> poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent
> has."

Hmmmm. The same obligation the childrens' OTHER parent ALSO failed to
meet. Isn't it strange that it's only criminal for the one parent who
has no control over the situation to do so....????? Strange.....

Mel Gamble

[Paul Fritz]

Cox is a horses ass that is trying to make a name for himself in state
politics, he's doing the same old same WRT CS collections....."we are going
to make money at it" BS . Rumor has it he wants to run for govenor, I can
only hope so when he loses that race he will no longer be the AG either

"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't it strange...
>
> Fighting for kids wrote:
> >
> > Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
> >
> > October 17, 2003
> >
> > BY JACK KRESNAK
> > FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
> >
> > Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to
help
> > get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no
financial
> > help from absent parents.
> >
> > In the state's six largest counties, about 40,000 parents each owe more
than
> > $40,000 in overdue child support. But only a few hundred of them are
facing
> > criminal charges.
> >
> > That will change, Cox said.
> >
> > "This isn't some social faux pas or breach of etiquette," Cox said.
"This is
> > a crime."
> >
> > Under the PayKids initiative, the attorney general will use 39
billboards, a
> > Web site, www.paykids.com, and a toll-free phone number to help parents
> > collect child support while educating the public at the same time. The
phone
> > number is 866-729-5437.
> >
> > Cox has also created a child-support division with a team of special
> > assistant attorneys general to help prosecute thousands of criminal
cases in
> > counties other than Wayne in which parents owe at least $40,000 in
> > court-ordered child support.
> >
> > In Wayne County, Cox's office will prosecute cases in which more than
> > $100,000 is owed, while County Prosecutor Mike Duggan's office will
pursue
> > child-support violators who owe more than $5,000 in child support as
long as
> > the children's cases are still active through the county's Friend of the
> > Court.
> >
> > In Michigan, Cox said, more than $7 billion is owed by child-support
> > violators, $3 billion of that to Michigan taxpayers who have supported
the
> > children through welfare programs.
>
> ... that the parents these same kids lived with - who also failed to
> prevent them from needing the assistance of the taxpayers - will never
> be charged with paying back $$$ that went to the childrens' needs....OR
> THE DOLLARS THEY GOT FOR THEMSELVES... Isn't that strange????
>
> > Since April, Cox said, his division has arrested 54 people, issued 95
arrest
> > warrants and collected more than $725,000 for Michigan children. Duggan
said
> > his office has prosecuted 820 violators this year and collected $908,000
for
> > children.
> >
> > The PayKids initiative is being funded by corporate sponsors including
> > General Motors Corp.,
>
> AAHHHHH....this is the famous "collect it whether they owe it or not"
> program...
>
> > the bridge-and-trucking company Centra, the Michigan
> > Hospital Association and the Michigan Medical Society.
>
> Sounds like a list of companies with their hands in the state's pockets,
> just like those custodial parents who dipped into the state's pockets
> and now want the OTHER parent to pay the state back....
>
> > The nonprofit
> > initiative is expected to raise more than $500,000 in its first year.
> >
> > Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for
Enforcement
> > of Support (ACES), a national organization based in Ann Arbor, praised
Cox
> > for his efforts.
> >
> > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
> > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
> > has."
>
> Hmmmm. The same obligation the childrens' OTHER parent ALSO failed to
> meet. Isn't it strange that it's only criminal for the one parent who
> has no control over the situation to do so....????? Strange.....
>
> Mel Gamble

[Matt D]

> Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes
> poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent
> has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

[[email protected]]

Paul F. states:
"Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>

And I voted for the asshole too.
He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.

In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
detail or two.

1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.

2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
what they can pay.

Neither of those two things is gonna happen.

Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
court ordered.

Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
made that Big money for (maybe) years?

They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.

Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
beats. Dedicated non payers.

That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.


nm

[The Dave©]

> Fighting for kids wrote:
> Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
>
> October 17, 2003
>
> BY JACK KRESNAK
> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>
> Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> causes poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> abandoned their children and have failed to meet the most basic
> obligation a parent has."

That's a mighty sweeping statement. I take it that **ALL** people
behind in CS are purposely so simply because they don't care.

[Fighting for kids]

Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont give a
flying rats ass about their self created problems.

> wrote in message
...
> Paul F. states:
> "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
>
> And I voted for the asshole too.
> He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
>
> In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> detail or two.
>
> 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
>
> 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> what they can pay.
>
> Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
>
> Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> court ordered.
>
> Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> made that Big money for (maybe) years?
>
> They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
>
> Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> beats. Dedicated non payers.
>
> That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
>
>
> nm
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting for kids says...
>
>Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
>lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont give a
>flying rats ass about their self created problems.
==
And this is worse than a lazy CP sitting on her ass waiting for the welfare
check to show up and whining about having to live without because the "child
support" isn't paid?
==
==

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
> lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont give
a
> flying rats ass about their self created problems.

This logic is about a bizzare as the rest of your posts. Let's say 20% of
an NCP father's gross is ordered for CS. Why would he intentionally give up
some significant portion of the other 80% of his gross income just to get
his CS reduced to 20% of a lower gross income number? That just doesn't
make sense.

But you are right about the judges not caring about the father's
predicament. They take the easy way out and use potential income for the CS
calculations. The law in my state requires the judge to "determine
employment potential and probable earnings level based on the parent's
recent work history, occupation qualifications, or prevailing job
opportuities and earnings levels in the community." I ask the judge for a
finding of fact on the record why he was imputing my income to the amount he
used. The judge refused to do that because he knew I could appeal his
erroneous finding.

There was an article in the local paper quoting a circuit court judge who
said the CS system was starting to recognize that there has been a change in
prevailing job opportunites and earnings levels over the last 3-4 years.
The courts are a good 3-4 years behind on acknowledging those economic
changes have occurred.

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting for kids says...
>
>Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
>
>October 17, 2003
>
>BY JACK KRESNAK
>FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>
>
>Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to help
>get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no financial
>help from absent parents.
.................................................. .....................
>
>Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes
>poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
>their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent
>has."

===========================
This is pure bottom-feeding politics contrived for those illiterate enough to
buy into such things.
The originators are at once stupid and liars.

Did they think we wouldn't notice that:

Illegal drug abuse causes poverty (not to mention the legal acts of alcholism
and gambling)

It is extremely rare for an NCP with children on welfare to have a child support
order sufficient to move those children from poverty. Perhaps if FFK can touch
base with reality long enough, she can find us some data on the average child
support order of fathers whose kids are on welfare.

CPs who are sitting on their asses collecting welfare checks are no less
responsible for their children's financial support than the NCPs. So what does
the state do? It hands them money for nothing and tosses the dad in jail. That
policy is a real stroke of genius. Now why is it that the state doesn't make the
CP get a job or two and pay *us* back the tax money she spent on the beer, bon
bons, anti-psychotic meds and comcast account?

Any CP who refuses to work at increasing her earnings capacity so she can
provide better for her children is no less a deadbeat than the non-paying dad.
Yet, she'll whine at how hard she has it because of the support *she* is "owed."
Curiously, this includes most of the CPs who come here whining about "deadbeat
dads." The loudest whiners are the laziest CPs which *clearly* distinguishes
them from the CP mom regulars here who are college educated and taking very good
care of their children regardless of what the dad is doing
< hearty applause >.
==
==

>
>

[Paul Fritz]

> wrote in message
...
> Paul F. states:
> "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
>
> And I voted for the asshole too.

I did to, but never again.

> He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.

From what I have seen...he is doing his own thing, and not necessarily what
the skirt with the pretty face that holds the govenor's office wants.

>
> In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> detail or two.
>
> 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
>
> 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> what they can pay.
>
> Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
>
> Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> court ordered.
>
> Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> made that Big money for (maybe) years?
>
> They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
>
> Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> beats. Dedicated non payers.
>
> That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
>
>
> nm
>

[Dan Curry]

I used their "Report a DeadBeat form" to report all the scumbags behind this
Extortion racket.


"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
>
> October 17, 2003
>
>
>
>
>
> BY JACK KRESNAK
> FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
>
>
>
>
> Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to
help
> get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no financial
> help from absent parents.
>
> In the state's six largest counties, about 40,000 parents each owe more
than
> $40,000 in overdue child support. But only a few hundred of them are
facing
> criminal charges.
>
> That will change, Cox said.
>
> "This isn't some social faux pas or breach of etiquette," Cox said. "This
is
> a crime."
>
> Under the PayKids initiative, the attorney general will use 39 billboards,
a
> Web site, www.paykids.com, and a toll-free phone number to help parents
> collect child support while educating the public at the same time. The
phone
> number is 866-729-5437.
>
> Cox has also created a child-support division with a team of special
> assistant attorneys general to help prosecute thousands of criminal cases
in
> counties other than Wayne in which parents owe at least $40,000 in
> court-ordered child support.
>
> In Wayne County, Cox's office will prosecute cases in which more than
> $100,000 is owed, while County Prosecutor Mike Duggan's office will pursue
> child-support violators who owe more than $5,000 in child support as long
as
> the children's cases are still active through the county's Friend of the
> Court.
>
> In Michigan, Cox said, more than $7 billion is owed by child-support
> violators, $3 billion of that to Michigan taxpayers who have supported the
> children through welfare programs.
>
> Since April, Cox said, his division has arrested 54 people, issued 95
arrest
> warrants and collected more than $725,000 for Michigan children. Duggan
said
> his office has prosecuted 820 violators this year and collected $908,000
for
> children.
>
> The PayKids initiative is being funded by corporate sponsors including
> General Motors Corp., the bridge-and-trucking company Centra, the Michigan
> Hospital Association and the Michigan Medical Society. The nonprofit
> initiative is expected to raise more than $500,000 in its first year.
>
> Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for
Enforcement
> of Support (ACES), a national organization based in Ann Arbor, praised Cox
> for his efforts.
>
> Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
> poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent
> has."
>
>

[Dusty]

> wrote in message
...
> Paul F. states:
> "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
>
> And I voted for the asshole too.
> He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
>
> In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> detail or two.
>
> 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
>
> 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> what they can pay.
>
> Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
>
> Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> court ordered.
>
> Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> made that Big money for (maybe) years?
>
> They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
>
> Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> beats. Dedicated non payers.
>
> That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
>
>
> nm
>

My brother had something similar happen to him - FIVE TIMES!! He had a good
job in 2001, was paying his CS (there are several instances of overpayment,
but that's another story..), had a nice apartment, saw his kids regularly,
no problems.

Then the stock market falls on it's face and in no time at all 8+ million
people where out of work. He went back to the courts on five different
occasions to have the CS lowered. The god damned judge ordered an INCREASE
from $600 a month to over $1000 a month!!

He had no job, no job prospects (save of flipping burgers) on the horizon
and this jack-ass tells him "It's incentive." What the hell is that kind of
crap?!?! Incentive my ass! It's robbery, plan and simple.

So, now the state wants to put him behind bars for "failure to pay". What a
crock of **** that idea is. Lock up someone that hasn't committed any
crime, to force them to give up money that they don't have. Now that makes
a whole hell of a lot of sense - NOT!

And they wonder why the suicide rate for divorced men is 10 times higher
than the national average...

[Chris]

> wrote in message
...
> Paul F. states:
> "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
>
> And I voted for the asshole too.
> He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
>
> In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> detail or two.
>
> 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
>
> 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> what they can pay.
>
> Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
>
> Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> court ordered.
>
> Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> made that Big money for (maybe) years?
>
> They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
>
> Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> beats. Dedicated non payers.

I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the "child
support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.

>
> That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
>
>
> nm
>

[Dusty]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
> lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont give
a
> flying rats ass about their self created problems.


No asshole, they loose their jobs through no fault of their own. Get sick,
have accidents, get their cars stolen. You know, things that the rest of us
would have happen in the normal course of life.

But these nut jobs think that an NCP will never loose their job, car,
health, home. This is NEVER taken into account when CS is figured. For
that matter CS is usually set so obscenely high, that if an NCP should ever
find themselves out of work for even a short amount of time, that the
arrears that is created because of this can almost never be repaid. And
that's betting that a judge will even listen to the case and allow the CS to
be lowered.

I ask you - does a married family have to set aside 20% of the family income
(pre-tax, too!) for care of their children?

The answer is NO, they do not.

Do non-married couples have to do this?

Again, NO, they do not.

Is the CP held accountable for where the CS is spent?

Hell NO. She can spend it on anything she wants.

So you see, "Fighting for kids", you're arguments don't hold water.

[Gini52]

In article >, Dusty says...
>
>
..................................................
>
>My brother had something similar happen to him - FIVE TIMES!! He had a good
>job in 2001, was paying his CS (there are several instances of overpayment,
>but that's another story..), had a nice apartment, saw his kids regularly,
>no problems.
>
>Then the stock market falls on it's face and in no time at all 8+ million
>people where out of work. He went back to the courts on five different
>occasions to have the CS lowered. The god damned judge ordered an INCREASE
>from $600 a month to over $1000 a month!!
>
>He had no job, no job prospects (save of flipping burgers) on the horizon
>and this jack-ass tells him "It's incentive." What the hell is that kind of
>crap?!?! Incentive my ass! It's robbery, plan and simple.
>
>So, now the state wants to put him behind bars for "failure to pay". What a
>crock of **** that idea is. Lock up someone that hasn't committed any
>crime, to force them to give up money that they don't have. Now that makes
>a whole hell of a lot of sense - NOT!
==
A "legal" prerequisite to incarceration is the "ability to pay."
The judge is required to make a finding that the NCP has the means to pay
but is refusing to. It is frequently ignored by the court, but it's his best
shot at a defense.
==
==
>
>And they wonder why the suicide rate for divorced men is 10 times higher
>than the national average...
>
>

[Dusty]

"Matt D" > wrote in message
om...
> > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
> > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
> > has."
>
>
> What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."

[Fighting for kids]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
> > lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont
give
> a
> > flying rats ass about their self created problems.
>
>
> No asshole, they loose their jobs through no fault of their own. Get
sick,
> have accidents, get their cars stolen. You know, things that the rest of
us
> would have happen in the normal course of life

I love how everyone here resorts to name calling...
Yes they do , but those laws are in place for reason usually because of some
group that has to ruin for the rest thats how life goes and why rules and
laws are in place.


>
> But these nut jobs think that an NCP will never loose their job, car,
> health, home. This is NEVER taken into account when CS is figured. For
> that matter CS is usually set so obscenely high, that if an NCP should
ever
> find themselves out of work for even a short amount of time, that the
> arrears that is created because of this can almost never be repaid. And
> that's betting that a judge will even listen to the case and allow the CS
to
> be lowered.

Of course it isnt and why should it be? CP's go through the same crap and
dont get to set aside much of anything either. The CP doesnt get a break at
all, they ALWAYS are taking care of the kids and anything that you NCP's
cant own up to.
>
> I ask you - does a married family have to set aside 20% of the family
income
> (pre-tax, too!) for care of their children?
>
> The answer is NO, they do not.

What planet do you live on? Of course they do after taxes are taken out the
"family" usually spends about 18-25% of their income on their children. Get
a life fool.

>
> Do non-married couples have to do this?
>
> Again, NO, they do not.

Earth to space monkey!!!! Come in space monkey anyone home???

>
> Is the CP held accountable for where the CS is spent?

No, are you held accountable for all your money and were it is spent? NOPE.

>
> Hell NO. She can spend it on anything she wants.

She can, but many dont. Many spend it on their children like they are
supposed to.
>
> So you see, "Fighting for kids", you're arguments don't hold water.

I would suggest otherwise, as would a large majority of CP's
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

So, as paul harvey says.. here's the rest of the story...

Brother probably was behind in the first place, brother probably jumped from
job to job and the judge said enough is enough and told this deadbeat to get
off his ass and find a job.

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul F. states:
> > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> >
> > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> >
> > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> > detail or two.
> >
> > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> >
> > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > what they can pay.
> >
> > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> >
> > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > court ordered.
> >
> > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> >
> > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> >
> > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> >
> > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> >
> >
> > nm
> >
>
> My brother had something similar happen to him - FIVE TIMES!! He had a
good
> job in 2001, was paying his CS (there are several instances of
overpayment,
> but that's another story..), had a nice apartment, saw his kids regularly,
> no problems.
>
> Then the stock market falls on it's face and in no time at all 8+ million
> people where out of work. He went back to the courts on five different
> occasions to have the CS lowered. The god damned judge ordered an
INCREASE
> from $600 a month to over $1000 a month!!
>
> He had no job, no job prospects (save of flipping burgers) on the horizon
> and this jack-ass tells him "It's incentive." What the hell is that kind
of
> crap?!?! Incentive my ass! It's robbery, plan and simple.
>
> So, now the state wants to put him behind bars for "failure to pay". What
a
> crock of **** that idea is. Lock up someone that hasn't committed any
> crime, to force them to give up money that they don't have. Now that
makes
> a whole hell of a lot of sense - NOT!
>
> And they wonder why the suicide rate for divorced men is 10 times higher
> than the national average...
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

So go flip burgers!!!

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul F. states:
> > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> >
> > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> >
> > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> > detail or two.
> >
> > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> >
> > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > what they can pay.
> >
> > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> >
> > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > court ordered.
> >
> > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> >
> > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> >
> > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > beats. Dedicated non payers.
>
> I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the "child
> support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.
>
> >
> > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> >
> >
> > nm
> >
>
>

[Dusty]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

EXCELLENT!!!! Way to go Dan!! I love it!!! :) You get the gold star!!

"Dan Curry" > wrote in message
. ..
> I used their "Report a DeadBeat form" to report all the scumbags behind
this
> Extortion racket.

[Fighting for kids]

Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
deadbeats...

Dan Curry Owes : $xxx,xxx
Steven Spehar: 179,619.44
Evelyn Sammut: 102021.00
Jeffery Kelly: 71739.31
Gregory Thomas: 50879.00
Michael Woodworth: 47229.00
Dennis Horn: 44848.68
Timothy Ackley: 41,000.00

WHo else in here needs to be listed??

Bob Whiteside, Matt D, Paul Fritz, Dusty, Melvin the Rambler, Nytmove,
Teacherpreacher's hubby, Lecher9000 oh and we cant forget little gini the
aspiring lawyer who doesnt know jack about laws.

"Dan Curry" > wrote in message
. ..
> I used their "Report a DeadBeat form" to report all the scumbags behind
this
> Extortion racket.
>
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > Cox strategy targets child support deadbeats
> >
> > October 17, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BY JACK KRESNAK
> > FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attorney General Mike Cox announced a two-pronged strategy Thursday to
> help
> > get child support for Michigan's 650,000 children who receive no
financial
> > help from absent parents.
> >
> > In the state's six largest counties, about 40,000 parents each owe more
> than
> > $40,000 in overdue child support. But only a few hundred of them are
> facing
> > criminal charges.
> >
> > That will change, Cox said.
> >
> > "This isn't some social faux pas or breach of etiquette," Cox said.
"This
> is
> > a crime."
> >
> > Under the PayKids initiative, the attorney general will use 39
billboards,
> a
> > Web site, www.paykids.com, and a toll-free phone number to help parents
> > collect child support while educating the public at the same time. The
> phone
> > number is 866-729-5437.
> >
> > Cox has also created a child-support division with a team of special
> > assistant attorneys general to help prosecute thousands of criminal
cases
> in
> > counties other than Wayne in which parents owe at least $40,000 in
> > court-ordered child support.
> >
> > In Wayne County, Cox's office will prosecute cases in which more than
> > $100,000 is owed, while County Prosecutor Mike Duggan's office will
pursue
> > child-support violators who owe more than $5,000 in child support as
long
> as
> > the children's cases are still active through the county's Friend of the
> > Court.
> >
> > In Michigan, Cox said, more than $7 billion is owed by child-support
> > violators, $3 billion of that to Michigan taxpayers who have supported
the
> > children through welfare programs.
> >
> > Since April, Cox said, his division has arrested 54 people, issued 95
> arrest
> > warrants and collected more than $725,000 for Michigan children. Duggan
> said
> > his office has prosecuted 820 violators this year and collected $908,000
> for
> > children.
> >
> > The PayKids initiative is being funded by corporate sponsors including
> > General Motors Corp., the bridge-and-trucking company Centra, the
Michigan
> > Hospital Association and the Michigan Medical Society. The nonprofit
> > initiative is expected to raise more than $500,000 in its first year.
> >
> > Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for
> Enforcement
> > of Support (ACES), a national organization based in Ann Arbor, praised
Cox
> > for his efforts.
> >
> > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> causes
> > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned
> > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
> > has."
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Why have a study for something that is so obvious?

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Matt D" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> causes
> > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
> > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> parent
> > > has."
> >
> >
> > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>
> And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> question directly have concluded otherwise."
>
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Dusty says...
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
>EXCELLENT!!!! Way to go Dan!! I love it!!! :) You get the gold star!!
>
>"Dan Curry" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I used their "Report a DeadBeat form" to report all the scumbags behind
>this
>> Extortion racket.
===
Read slowly, FFK and give your brain time to catch up to the meaning.
===
===
>
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> So go flip burgers!!!

I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an imputed
income; with "imputed" cash?

>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Paul F. states:
> > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > >
> > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> > >
> > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
Minor
> > > detail or two.
> > >
> > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > >
> > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
were
> > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > > what they can pay.
> > >
> > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > >
> > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
those
> > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > > court ordered.
> > >
> > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an
hour
> > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > >
> > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > >
> > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at
a
> > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> >
> > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the
"child
> > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.
> >
> > >
> > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > nm
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> So, as paul harvey says.. here's the rest of the story...
>
> Brother probably was behind in the first place, brother probably jumped
from
> job to job and the judge said enough is enough and told this deadbeat to
get
> off his ass and find a job.

Involuntary servitude is illegal.

>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Paul F. states:
> > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > >
> > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> > >
> > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
Minor
> > > detail or two.
> > >
> > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > >
> > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
were
> > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > > what they can pay.
> > >
> > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > >
> > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
those
> > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > > court ordered.
> > >
> > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an
hour
> > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > >
> > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > >
> > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at
a
> > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > >
> > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > nm
> > >
> >
> > My brother had something similar happen to him - FIVE TIMES!! He had a
> good
> > job in 2001, was paying his CS (there are several instances of
> overpayment,
> > but that's another story..), had a nice apartment, saw his kids
regularly,
> > no problems.
> >
> > Then the stock market falls on it's face and in no time at all 8+
million
> > people where out of work. He went back to the courts on five different
> > occasions to have the CS lowered. The god damned judge ordered an
> INCREASE
> > from $600 a month to over $1000 a month!!
> >
> > He had no job, no job prospects (save of flipping burgers) on the
horizon
> > and this jack-ass tells him "It's incentive." What the hell is that
kind
> of
> > crap?!?! Incentive my ass! It's robbery, plan and simple.
> >
> > So, now the state wants to put him behind bars for "failure to pay".
What
> a
> > crock of **** that idea is. Lock up someone that hasn't committed any
> > crime, to force them to give up money that they don't have. Now that
> makes
> > a whole hell of a lot of sense - NOT!
> >
> > And they wonder why the suicide rate for divorced men is 10 times higher
> > than the national average...
> >
> >
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child. Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented to
this very same committee in 1995). Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being? The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Matt D" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> causes
> > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
> > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> parent
> > > has."
> >
> >
> > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>
> And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> question directly have concluded otherwise."
>
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Work two jobs, three jobs.


"Chris" > wrote in message
news:VDprb.11957$0K6.4847@fed1read06...
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > So go flip burgers!!!
>
> I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an imputed
> income; with "imputed" cash?
>
> >
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Paul F. states:
> > > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > > >
> > > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass.
Same
> > > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> > > >
> > > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
> Minor
> > > > detail or two.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
> were
> > > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > > > what they can pay.
> > > >
> > > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > > >
> > > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
> those
> > > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > > > court ordered.
> > > >
> > > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an
> hour
> > > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he
hasn't
> > > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > > >
> > > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > > >
> > > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter
at
> a
> > > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real
dead
> > > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > >
> > > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the
> "child
> > > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> > > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > nm
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Snore...


"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> And this...............
> Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
> laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
> it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
> how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

> Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
> this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.


The intact family, something not terribly
> popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> less).

And raising a child alone is not work? A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> > causes
> > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> abandoned
> > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> > parent
> > > > has."
> > >
> > >
> > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >
> > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
> deadbeats...
>
> Dan Curry Owes : $xxx,xxx
> Steven Spehar: 179,619.44
> Evelyn Sammut: 102021.00
> Jeffery Kelly: 71739.31
> Gregory Thomas: 50879.00
> Michael Woodworth: 47229.00
> Dennis Horn: 44848.68
> Timothy Ackley: 41,000.00
>
> WHo else in here needs to be listed??
>
> Bob Whiteside, Matt D, Paul Fritz, Dusty, Melvin the Rambler, Nytmove,
> Teacherpreacher's hubby, Lecher9000 oh and we cant forget little gini the
> aspiring lawyer who doesnt know jack about laws.

I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5 years. I
used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all of
the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat for
what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy to
do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.

[Dusty]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
> > > lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont
> give
> > a
> > > flying rats ass about their self created problems.
> >
> >
> > No asshole, they loose their jobs through no fault of their own. Get
> sick,
> > have accidents, get their cars stolen. You know, things that the rest
of
> us
> > would have happen in the normal course of life
>
> I love how everyone here resorts to name calling...
> Yes they do , but those laws are in place for reason usually because of
some
> group that has to ruin for the rest thats how life goes and why rules and
> laws are in place.

OK, you show me the LAW that states that you, I or anyone else in a divorce
situation is held accountable for the state of the economy. Or how it's the
vivtums fault that their car was stolen. Better yet, how is it an NCP's
fault that they broke a leg when some drunk hit them with their car?

Tell me how this happens, I'd really like to know.

> > But these nut jobs think that an NCP will never loose their job, car,
> > health, home. This is NEVER taken into account when CS is figured. For
> > that matter CS is usually set so obscenely high, that if an NCP should
> ever
> > find themselves out of work for even a short amount of time, that the
> > arrears that is created because of this can almost never be repaid. And
> > that's betting that a judge will even listen to the case and allow the
CS
> to
> > be lowered.
>
> Of course it isnt and why should it be? CP's go through the same crap and
> dont get to set aside much of anything either. The CP doesnt get a break
at
> all, they ALWAYS are taking care of the kids and anything that you NCP's
> cant own up to.

Really? Show me your proof. What documentation do you have to prove your
point? I'll give you a hint - spewing NOW doctrine isn't going to do it.

> > I ask you - does a married family have to set aside 20% of the family
> income
> > (pre-tax, too!) for care of their children?
> >
> > The answer is NO, they do not.
>
> What planet do you live on? Of course they do after taxes are taken out
the
> "family" usually spends about 18-25% of their income on their children.
Get
> a life fool.

I've never heard of any law that tells anyone, other then NCPs, what they
must do with their money. If you can show me the law that makes this
happen, I'd love to see it!

> > Do non-married couples have to do this?
> >
> > Again, NO, they do not.
>
> Earth to space monkey!!!! Come in space monkey anyone home???

Again, show me the law that makes this so.

> > Is the CP held accountable for where the CS is spent?
>
> No, are you held accountable for all your money and were it is spent?
NOPE.

Ask any NCP and they will tell you that THEY have to account for every dime
they make, how and where they spend it. Yes, there are a few states that
have enacted laws that force the CP to show that the CS is actually spent on
the kids, but it's almost never enforced.

> > Hell NO. She can spend it on anything she wants.
>
> She can, but many dont. Many spend it on their children like they are
> supposed to.

You'll never make a believer out of me over this one. I know from my own
experience that this happens. The CP can spend the CS on anything she
wants, where she wants, how she wants.

> > So you see, "Fighting for kids", you're arguments don't hold water.
>
> I would suggest otherwise, as would a large majority of CP's

Again, prove it. I can prove otherwise, that CPs get almost anything they
want, can ruin lives at a whim, have the courts in their pockets and state
legislatures doing most of the work for them.

Show me the laws! Prove your points. Show us that what you spew out is
FACT, not the fiction which the rest of us know it to be.

[Dusty]

1. Until the market crash of '01, he was ahead in CS payments.
2. Was employed full time, non-contract, at a good IT job, made decent
money, too.
3. The judge was biased against him (I sat in on the cases before his came
up and it was very evident that this "judge" wasn't interested in hearing
anything from any male in his courtroom).

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> So, as paul harvey says.. here's the rest of the story...
>
> Brother probably was behind in the first place, brother probably jumped
from
> job to job and the judge said enough is enough and told this deadbeat to
get
> off his ass and find a job.

[Dusty]

Tell you what, you go flip burgers and try to live in that meager amount AND
pay a grand a month in CS.

Go ahead, try it . You'll find that that dog won't hunt.

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> So go flip burgers!!!
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Paul F. states:
> > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > >
> > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> > >
> > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
Minor
> > > detail or two.
> > >
> > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > >
> > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
were
> > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > > what they can pay.
> > >
> > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > >
> > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
those
> > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > > court ordered.
> > >
> > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an
hour
> > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > >
> > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > >
> > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at
a
> > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> >
> > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the
"child
> > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.
> >
> > >
> > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > nm
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dusty]

Because nazis like you won't listen to reason.

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Why have a study for something that is so obvious?

[Dusty]

Good grief. Don't you ever learn?

I'd like to know just how much you suck from the teat of GovCo's Divorce
Industry...

Please tell us how much you -gain- over your regular pay check. Unless
popping out kids and collecting CS from unsuspecting fathers IS your job...

Oh, and it's not me that owes CS - it's my brother. And at last count, it
was around $58k for 24 months of non-payment because of a lack of work.

I've never seen anyone in more dire need of a bitch slap in my life then you
FFK..



"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
> deadbeats...

[Dusty]

I wish you'd explain it to the rest of us, because I can think of lots of
other guys that could use the help.

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...

> I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5 years.
I
> used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all of
> the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat
for
> what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy to
> do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

I've never paid I dime of support in my life.....and am damn proud of it.

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
> > deadbeats...
> >
> > Dan Curry Owes : $xxx,xxx
> > Steven Spehar: 179,619.44
> > Evelyn Sammut: 102021.00
> > Jeffery Kelly: 71739.31
> > Gregory Thomas: 50879.00
> > Michael Woodworth: 47229.00
> > Dennis Horn: 44848.68
> > Timothy Ackley: 41,000.00
> >
> > WHo else in here needs to be listed??
> >
> > Bob Whiteside, Matt D, Paul Fritz, Dusty, Melvin the Rambler, Nytmove,
> > Teacherpreacher's hubby, Lecher9000 oh and we cant forget little gini
the
> > aspiring lawyer who doesnt know jack about laws.
>
> I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5 years.
I
> used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all of
> the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat
for
> what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy to
> do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Figures

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> I've never paid I dime of support in my life.....and am damn proud of it.
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
> > > deadbeats...
> > >
> > > Dan Curry Owes : $xxx,xxx
> > > Steven Spehar: 179,619.44
> > > Evelyn Sammut: 102021.00
> > > Jeffery Kelly: 71739.31
> > > Gregory Thomas: 50879.00
> > > Michael Woodworth: 47229.00
> > > Dennis Horn: 44848.68
> > > Timothy Ackley: 41,000.00
> > >
> > > WHo else in here needs to be listed??
> > >
> > > Bob Whiteside, Matt D, Paul Fritz, Dusty, Melvin the Rambler, Nytmove,
> > > Teacherpreacher's hubby, Lecher9000 oh and we cant forget little gini
> the
> > > aspiring lawyer who doesnt know jack about laws.
> >
> > I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5
years.
> I
> > used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all
of
> > the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat
> for
> > what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy
to
> > do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> I wish you'd explain it to the rest of us, because I can think of lots of
> other guys that could use the help.

Okay. First, when the child turns 18, and your state CS laws provide for
post-18 advanced education support, the laws usually allow the CS money to
be paid directly to the child. The case law generally will back up the
legal distinction that pre-18 CS is for the care and maintenance of MINOR
children. Post-18 support is designed to advance the state's interests in
having an educated populace. Post-18 you get an order specifiying the CS is
paid directly to the ADULT child, if the law doesn't automatically make this
shift to the child. The mother has to show cause why the child receiving
the CS directly is detrimental to the adult child. Of course, that is
nearly impossible to prove.

Second, custody orders only apply to MINOR children. Once a child reaches
the age of 18, unless a divorce decree specifies how post-18 tax exemptions
are to be handled, there is no more formal custody. The IRS rules for
exemptions and filing head of household status revert from the CP test to
the parent paying more than 50% of the child's support and/or living
expenses. Since the CS order for fathers is generally way more than 50% of
the total CS award, the father can start taking the child as a tax
exemption. In my case, my child moved her stuff into my house so her mom
could rent out her living quarters while she was away at college. That
meant I was proving more than 50% of my child's living expenses under IRS
definitions so I claimed head of household filing status.

You just do this stuff and the IRS sorts it out. When challenged by my ex
about why I was taking the exemption and HOH filing status, I simply said
because I qualified for those tax advantages under IRS rules and she should
check with her tax filing professional. Of course, this meant she lost the
exemption, the filing status, the EIC, and the education credits she
previously took. But those issues are problems for the former CP to deal
with since NCP fathers have every right to use the IRS rules to their
advantage.

>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
> > I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5
years.
> I
> > used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all
of
> > the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat
> for
> > what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy
to
> > do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> 1. Until the market crash of '01, he was ahead in CS payments.
> 2. Was employed full time, non-contract, at a good IT job, made decent
> money, too.
> 3. The judge was biased against him (I sat in on the cases before his
came
> up and it was very evident that this "judge" wasn't interested in hearing
> anything from any male in his courtroom).

I'M SHOCKED !

>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > So, as paul harvey says.. here's the rest of the story...
> >
> > Brother probably was behind in the first place, brother probably jumped
> from
> > job to job and the judge said enough is enough and told this deadbeat to
> get
> > off his ass and find a job.
>
>

[Dusty]

You should be. I sure was.
A murderer has more rights, due process and is availed every defense. But
if your a divorced father you have no rights. Take a look at the Bradly
bill (no, not the BRADY bill, that has to do with guns), it's based on what
the senator from NJ decided was proper for lower income families - now
applied to all families going through "Family" court.

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:yzCrb.14259$0K6.13457@fed1read06...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> > 1. Until the market crash of '01, he was ahead in CS payments.
> > 2. Was employed full time, non-contract, at a good IT job, made decent
> > money, too.
> > 3. The judge was biased against him (I sat in on the cases before his
> came
> > up and it was very evident that this "judge" wasn't interested in
hearing
> > anything from any male in his courtroom).
>
> I'M SHOCKED !
>
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So, as paul harvey says.. here's the rest of the story...
> > >
> > > Brother probably was behind in the first place, brother probably
jumped
> > from
> > > job to job and the judge said enough is enough and told this deadbeat
to
> > get
> > > off his ass and find a job.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Work two jobs, three jobs.

Can you say "involuntary servitude"? That aside, what if the three jobs
still do not produce the imputed income?

>
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:VDprb.11957$0K6.4847@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So go flip burgers!!!
> >
> > I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an imputed
> > income; with "imputed" cash?
> >
> > >
> > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Paul F. states:
> > > > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > > > >
> > > > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass.
> Same
> > > > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the
Governor.
> > > > >
> > > > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
> > Minor
> > > > > detail or two.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
> > were
> > > > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to
see
> > > > > what they can pay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
> > those
> > > > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what
was
> > > > > court ordered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he
no
> > > > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10
an
> > hour
> > > > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he
> hasn't
> > > > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > > > >
> > > > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be
in
> > > > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn
bitter
> at
> > a
> > > > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real
> dead
> > > > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > > >
> > > > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the
> > "child
> > > > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> > > > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go
figure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > nm
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting for kids]

Not all NCP's get hung out to dry this notion that all of them are is silly.
Just like the notion that all CP's have it good or that they use all the
money on themselves.. blah..

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:m0Erb.14532$0K6.6210@fed1read06...
>
> "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> > Work two jobs, three jobs.
>
> Can you say "involuntary servitude"? That aside, what if the three jobs
> still do not produce the imputed income?
>
> >
> >
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > news:VDprb.11957$0K6.4847@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > So go flip burgers!!!
> > >
> > > I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an
imputed
> > > income; with "imputed" cash?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > > news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Paul F. states:
> > > > > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > > > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass.
> > Same
> > > > > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the
> Governor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected
a
> > > Minor
> > > > > > detail or two.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to
be
> > > > > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs
they
> > > were
> > > > > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to
> see
> > > > > > what they can pay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many
of
> > > those
> > > > > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what
> was
> > > > > > court ordered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that
he
> no
> > > > > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10
> an
> > > hour
> > > > > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he
> > hasn't
> > > > > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and
be
> in
> > > > > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn
> bitter
> > at
> > > a
> > > > > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be
real
> > dead
> > > > > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > > > >
> > > > > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay
the
> > > "child
> > > > > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding
another
> > > > > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go
> figure.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nm
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Flying Fruit Kake is apparently the kind of bitter, vindictive person
who sees no reason to doubt that a sane person would give up $1000/month
in income in order to lower support payments by $150...

Fortunately, real people aren't so stupid...

Mel Gamble

Fighting for kids wrote:
>
> Usually they take a lower paying job in hopes of getting their support
> lowered then when it back fires on them they cry and the judges dont give a
> flying rats ass about their self created problems.
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul F. states:
> > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> >
> > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass. Same
> > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> >
> > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a Minor
> > detail or two.
> >
> > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> >
> > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they were
> > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > what they can pay.
> >
> > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> >
> > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of those
> > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > court ordered.
> >
> > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an hour
> > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he hasn't
> > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> >
> > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> >
> > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter at a
> > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real dead
> > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> >
> > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> >
> >
> > nm
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Or get a job with NOW like Flying Fruit Kake has, endlessly farting at
newsgroups...

Mel Gamble

Fighting for kids wrote:
>
> Work two jobs, three jobs.
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:VDprb.11957$0K6.4847@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So go flip burgers!!!
> >
> > I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an imputed
> > income; with "imputed" cash?
> >
> > >
> > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Paul F. states:
> > > > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > > > >
> > > > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses ass.
> Same
> > > > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the Governor.
> > > > >
> > > > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've neglected a
> > Minor
> > > > > detail or two.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs to be
> > > > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs they
> > were
> > > > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated to see
> > > > > what they can pay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many of
> > those
> > > > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT what was
> > > > > court ordered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that he no
> > > > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like) $10 an
> > hour
> > > > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he
> hasn't
> > > > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > > > >
> > > > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and be in
> > > > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn bitter
> at
> > a
> > > > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be real
> dead
> > > > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > > >
> > > > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay the
> > "child
> > > > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding another
> > > > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go figure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > nm
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:
>
> Snore...
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And this...............
> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> support
> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> could
> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>
> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> twice ?
>
> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> knows
> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> > the child.
>
> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>
> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
>
> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>
> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> to
> > this very same committee in 1995).
>
> Where? What study?
>
> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> > increasing child well-being?
>
> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> correlate at all.
>
> The intact family, something not terribly
> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> > less).
>
> And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

> A recent study showed that a stay at
> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> > > causes
> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> > abandoned
> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> > > parent
> > > > > has."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> > >
> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Chris]

"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
> Not all NCP's get hung out to dry this notion that all of them are is
silly.
> Just like the notion that all CP's have it good or that they use all the
> money on themselves.. blah..

Ignoratio elenchi.

>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:m0Erb.14532$0K6.6210@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Work two jobs, three jobs.
> >
> > Can you say "involuntary servitude"? That aside, what if the three jobs
> > still do not produce the imputed income?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > news:VDprb.11957$0K6.4847@fed1read06...
> > > >
> > > > "Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > So go flip burgers!!!
> > > >
> > > > I suppose he could. But then how is he going to pay her with an
> imputed
> > > > income; with "imputed" cash?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:svkrb.10191$0K6.10076@fed1read06...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Paul F. states:
> > > > > > > "Cox is a horses ass..." <snipped>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I voted for the asshole too.
> > > > > > > He may be a horses ass, but he's an Attorney General horses
ass.
> > > Same
> > > > > > > goes for the Governor. Cox is acting under order from the
> > Governor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In their effort to get dead beat dads to pay, they've
neglected
> a
> > > > Minor
> > > > > > > detail or two.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Fix the badly broken friend of the court system. It needs
to
> be
> > > > > > > dismantled, and a new system put in it's place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) The dads who are no longer working at the high paying jobs
> they
> > > > were
> > > > > > > when first tagged with paying big $$ CS should be reevaluated
to
> > see
> > > > > > > what they can pay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neither of those two things is gonna happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just yesterday, they found county jails were overcrowded. Many
> of
> > > > those
> > > > > > > locked up are dead beat dads. Many were paying CS, but NOT
what
> > was
> > > > > > > court ordered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just how is a man supposed to pay more than he makes? Now that
> he
> > no
> > > > > > > longer makes (like) $25 an hour, and has a job paying (like)
$10
> > an
> > > > hour
> > > > > > > less, what is he to do when he is ignored when shows Proof he
> > > hasn't
> > > > > > > made that Big money for (maybe) years?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're gonna load up the jails, make men lose their jobs, and
> be
> > in
> > > > > > > worse shape (child support wise) than they were before.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now you have previously employed men, out of a job, and damn
> > bitter
> > > at
> > > > a
> > > > > > > system that just wouldn't listen to reason.They then will be
> real
> > > dead
> > > > > > > beats. Dedicated non payers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I knew of a man who lost his truck driving job and couldn't pay
> the
> > > > "child
> > > > > > support" money to the woman. While in the process of finding
> another
> > > > > > trucking job, she had his driver's license pulled........ Go
> > figure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is what's happening, and that is what's gonna happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Gini52 ...

We've already heard of cases where a man loses his high paying job, and
the only thing a judge does is tell him to take on another job, or get a
better one.

I think many well meaning men, willing to pay their CS, are turned into
deliberate dead beats due to the injustice they suffer at the hands of
overworked judges. They are way too busy shuffling papers, and Not
taking care that justice is served.

Here in Mi, the 'system' is gonna burst, as soon as the jails get so
crowded with men railroaded into them by laws that are not based on
common sense.
I see it coming. And If I can, the courts and Attorney General should
too. I'm anxious to see what's gonna happen.

nm

[Gini52]

In article >,
says...
>
>Gini52 ...
>
>We've already heard of cases where a man loses his high paying job, and
>the only thing a judge does is tell him to take on another job, or get a
>better one.
=======
I'm not sure what post you are responding to but I don't think I posted anything
counter to your opinion. In fact, when my husband's CS was doubled after we were
married and had two little ones, the judge told him if he couldn't afford the
1200. a month he should get a second job. This is a man who already works about
60 hours a week not to mention that our little ones need their father's
nurturing as well. Further evidence that the system works in the best interest
of the CP and state--certainly *not* the best interest of children--in this
case, "our" children.
======
>
>I think many well meaning men, willing to pay their CS, are turned into
>deliberate dead beats due to the injustice they suffer at the hands of
>overworked judges. They are way too busy shuffling papers, and Not
>taking care that justice is served.
=======
They have accepted the assumption that women are victims and men are
victimizers. As long as that is the accepted standard, men and children lose.
=======
=======

[[email protected]]

The question should be, do you ever learn?

Obviously from other posts you are the "sister" that somehow thinks
its acceptable for your brother to not help pay for the children that
he makes.

You seem to think that everything is the X's fault, when in fact it
usually is both that have done something wrong.

How about you add your name to the list of deadbeat supporters, child
neglectors?

$58,000 for two years is totally unaccpetable. I would say from all
your posts that your brother is evading child support not down on his
luck. How many "jobs" has he actually had over this two year period?



On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:18:24 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Good grief. Don't you ever learn?
>
>I'd like to know just how much you suck from the teat of GovCo's Divorce
>Industry...
>
>Please tell us how much you -gain- over your regular pay check. Unless
>popping out kids and collecting CS from unsuspecting fathers IS your job...
>
>Oh, and it's not me that owes CS - it's my brother. And at last count, it
>was around $58k for 24 months of non-payment because of a lack of work.
>
>I've never seen anyone in more dire need of a bitch slap in my life then you
>FFK..
>
>
>
>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>> Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
>> deadbeats...
>

[[email protected]]

Here is where you are wrong again BOB.

"Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.



On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:10:30 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
>> I wish you'd explain it to the rest of us, because I can think of lots of
>> other guys that could use the help.
>
>Okay. First, when the child turns 18, and your state CS laws provide for
>post-18 advanced education support, the laws usually allow the CS money to
>be paid directly to the child. The case law generally will back up the
>legal distinction that pre-18 CS is for the care and maintenance of MINOR
>children.


Post-18 support is designed to advance the state's interests in
>having an educated populace. Post-18 you get an order specifiying the CS is
>paid directly to the ADULT child, if the law doesn't automatically make this
>shift to the child. The mother has to show cause why the child receiving
>the CS directly is detrimental to the adult child. Of course, that is
>nearly impossible to prove.

Not always, there are many cases in which a child is still considered
to be in the care of an adult after the age of 18, and in some states
the age of 19. No later than the age of 21 for any state or case.

>
>Second, custody orders only apply to MINOR children. Once a child reaches
>the age of 18, unless a divorce decree specifies how post-18 tax exemptions
>are to be handled, there is no more formal custody.


This is were you are wrong again, there are cases in which custody
continues after the age of emancipation.


The IRS rules for
>exemptions and filing head of household status revert from the CP test to
>the parent paying more than 50% of the child's support and/or living
>expenses. Since the CS order for fathers is generally way more than 50% of
>the total CS award, the father can start taking the child as a tax
>exemption.

After the age of emancipation "if" the child is still living with you.
Which in Bob's case she is. Make this distinction because if you dont
you will be commiting tax fraud.

In my case, my child moved her stuff into my house so her mom
>could rent out her living quarters while she was away at college. That
>meant I was proving more than 50% of my child's living expenses under IRS
>definitions so I claimed head of household filing status.

Which is correct, if the child is going to college and she lives with
you.

>
>You just do this stuff and the IRS sorts it out. When challenged by my ex
>about why I was taking the exemption and HOH filing status, I simply said
>because I qualified for those tax advantages under IRS rules and she should
>check with her tax filing professional. Of course, this meant she lost the
>exemption, the filing status, the EIC, and the education credits she
>previously took. But those issues are problems for the former CP to deal
>with since NCP fathers have every right to use the IRS rules to their
>advantage.

Then this changes the custody arrangement, and you are now considered
to be the "custodial" parent (not technically maybe, but in general)
so you are entitled to the tax benefits just as the previous CP was.
However, you still may NOT be able to take all these credits if the
child works and makes over a certain amount. Then you are NOT allowed
to take all the above benefits

>
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>> > I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5
>years.
>> I
>> > used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all
>of
>> > the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat
>> for
>> > what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy
>to
>> > do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[[email protected]]

Proud to not help support your children? What is this world coming
to?

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:29:56 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
...
>> Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
>> deadbeats...
>>
>> Dan Curry Owes : $xxx,xxx
>> Steven Spehar: 179,619.44
>> Evelyn Sammut: 102021.00
>> Jeffery Kelly: 71739.31
>> Gregory Thomas: 50879.00
>> Michael Woodworth: 47229.00
>> Dennis Horn: 44848.68
>> Timothy Ackley: 41,000.00
>>
>> WHo else in here needs to be listed??
>>
>> Bob Whiteside, Matt D, Paul Fritz, Dusty, Melvin the Rambler, Nytmove,
>> Teacherpreacher's hubby, Lecher9000 oh and we cant forget little gini the
>> aspiring lawyer who doesnt know jack about laws.
>
>I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5 years. I
>used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took all of
>the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a deadbeat for
>what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really easy to
>do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
>

[[email protected]]

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
>> knows
>> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> wrote:

>Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
>many factors missing in her education...
>
>Fighting for kids wrote:
>>
>> Snore...
>>
>> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > And this...............
>> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
>> support
>> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
>> could
>> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
>> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>>
>> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
>> twice ?
>>
>> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
>> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
>> knows
>> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
>> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
>> > the child.
>>
>> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>>
>> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
>> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
>>
>> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
>> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
>> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>>
>> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
>> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
>> to
>> > this very same committee in 1995).
>>
>> Where? What study?
>>
>> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
>> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
>> > increasing child well-being?
>>
>> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
>> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
>> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
>> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
>> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
>> correlate at all.
>>
>> The intact family, something not terribly
>> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
>> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
>> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
>> > less).
>>
>> And raising a child alone is not work?
>
>Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
>doing it...
>
>> A recent study showed that a stay at
>> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
>> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
>> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
>> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
>> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>
>Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
>assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
>> > > om...
>> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
>> > > causes
>> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
>> > abandoned
>> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
>> > > parent
>> > > > > has."
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
>> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
>> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>> > >
>> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
>> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
>> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
>> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
>> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >

[[email protected]]

On 10 Nov 2003 08:35:49 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>>Gini52 ...
>>
>>We've already heard of cases where a man loses his high paying job, and
>>the only thing a judge does is tell him to take on another job, or get a
>>better one.
>=======
>I'm not sure what post you are responding to but I don't think I posted anything
>counter to your opinion. In fact, when my husband's CS was doubled after we were
>married and had two little ones, the judge told him if he couldn't afford the
>1200. a month he should get a second job. This is a man who already works about
>60 hours a week not to mention that our little ones need their father's
>nurturing as well. Further evidence that the system works in the best interest
>of the CP and state--certainly *not* the best interest of children--in this
>case, "our" children.

Why would anyone have MORE children if they couldnt afford the first
ones? Just have more and more children and use that as an excuse to
get out of paying support.

Ive seen some of you post that when a woman has more children they are
stupid and just do it to get the extra money. However gini has just
proven why men have additional children, so they can get their support
lowered or at least thats the underlying reasons for them asking for
support to be lowered.

Same principal just in reverse.

>======
>>
>>I think many well meaning men, willing to pay their CS, are turned into
>>deliberate dead beats due to the injustice they suffer at the hands of
>>overworked judges. They are way too busy shuffling papers, and Not
>>taking care that justice is served.
>=======
>They have accepted the assumption that women are victims and men are
>victimizers. As long as that is the accepted standard, men and children lose.

Likewise you gini have accepted that men are the victims and women are
the victimizers.

There is only one TRUE victim and that's the children.

Also, what position would you take when YOUR husband leaves you? Are
you going to still play men are victims or are you going to switch
views and then become one of these CP women you so hate?

Of course I would expect the "men are still victims" response from you
because you have to defend your husband. As a matter of fact no
response from you is necessary.
>=======
>=======

[[email protected]]

FFK ...

Your curiosity about who owes what is interesting.
I came into this NG to (hopefully) gather info for my step son, who
works two jobs to pay his ridiculously high CS.
I haven't had to pay child support for over 15 yrs, so CS is a moot
point with me. My interest here is that which would concern my step son,
not myself.

nm

[Bob Whiteside]

> wrote in message
...
> Here is where you are wrong again BOB.
>
> "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
> would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:10:30 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> >> I wish you'd explain it to the rest of us, because I can think of lots
of
> >> other guys that could use the help.
> >
> >Okay. First, when the child turns 18, and your state CS laws provide for
> >post-18 advanced education support, the laws usually allow the CS money
to
> >be paid directly to the child. The case law generally will back up the
> >legal distinction that pre-18 CS is for the care and maintenance of MINOR
> >children.
>
>
> Post-18 support is designed to advance the state's interests in
> >having an educated populace. Post-18 you get an order specifiying the CS
is
> >paid directly to the ADULT child, if the law doesn't automatically make
this
> >shift to the child. The mother has to show cause why the child receiving
> >the CS directly is detrimental to the adult child. Of course, that is
> >nearly impossible to prove.
>
> Not always, there are many cases in which a child is still considered
> to be in the care of an adult after the age of 18, and in some states
> the age of 19. No later than the age of 21 for any state or case.
>
> >
> >Second, custody orders only apply to MINOR children. Once a child
reaches
> >the age of 18, unless a divorce decree specifies how post-18 tax
exemptions
> >are to be handled, there is no more formal custody.
>
>
> This is were you are wrong again, there are cases in which custody
> continues after the age of emancipation.
>
>
> The IRS rules for
> >exemptions and filing head of household status revert from the CP test to
> >the parent paying more than 50% of the child's support and/or living
> >expenses. Since the CS order for fathers is generally way more than 50%
of
> >the total CS award, the father can start taking the child as a tax
> >exemption.
>
> After the age of emancipation "if" the child is still living with you.
> Which in Bob's case she is. Make this distinction because if you dont
> you will be commiting tax fraud.
>
> In my case, my child moved her stuff into my house so her mom
> >could rent out her living quarters while she was away at college. That
> >meant I was proving more than 50% of my child's living expenses under IRS
> >definitions so I claimed head of household filing status.
>
> Which is correct, if the child is going to college and she lives with
> you.
>
> >
> >You just do this stuff and the IRS sorts it out. When challenged by my
ex
> >about why I was taking the exemption and HOH filing status, I simply said
> >because I qualified for those tax advantages under IRS rules and she
should
> >check with her tax filing professional. Of course, this meant she lost
the
> >exemption, the filing status, the EIC, and the education credits she
> >previously took. But those issues are problems for the former CP to deal
> >with since NCP fathers have every right to use the IRS rules to their
> >advantage.
>
> Then this changes the custody arrangement, and you are now considered
> to be the "custodial" parent (not technically maybe, but in general)
> so you are entitled to the tax benefits just as the previous CP was.
> However, you still may NOT be able to take all these credits if the
> child works and makes over a certain amount. Then you are NOT allowed
> to take all the above benefits
>
> >
> >>
> >> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> k.net...
> >>
> >> > I haven't paid any CS to support my children's mother for nearly 5
> >years.
> >> I
> >> > used the laws and got out of having to pay her anything. And I took
all
> >of
> >> > the tax benefits she used to get too. I enjoy being called a
deadbeat
> >> for
> >> > what I did and how I used the system to my advantage. It's really
easy
> >to
> >> > do. Some day I might even explain it to FFK.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Bob Whiteside]

> wrote in message
...
> Here is where you are wrong again BOB.
>
> "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
> would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.

Two points - States do not have the authority to write laws that over-ride
federal IRS laws. And the word "emancipation" refers to a minor child no
longer living under the direct supervision of a parent and applies only to
pre-18 children's living situation. You have mixed the state CS laws that
set the upper limit on CS paid directly to the CP with what I am saying
about children becoming adults as defined under federal law and how their
age impacts tax filing options.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message news:...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Here is where you are wrong again BOB.
> >
> > "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
> > would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.
>
> Two points - States do not have the authority to write laws that over-ride
> federal IRS laws. And the word "emancipation" refers to a minor child no
> longer living under the direct supervision of a parent and applies only to
> pre-18 children's living situation. You have mixed the state CS laws that
> set the upper limit on CS paid directly to the CP with what I am saying
> about children becoming adults as defined under federal law and how their
> age impacts tax filing options.

I forgot to mention one other thing . . . FFK has now switched her identity
to . "None" is using the exact same cable modem Internet
hook-up address as Fighting, who used the same cable modem as CJ.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:36:04 -0500 (EST), wrote:

>FFK ...
>
>Your curiosity about who owes what is interesting.
>I came into this NG to (hopefully) gather info for my step son, who
>works two jobs to pay his ridiculously high CS.
Ridiculously high? That's your opinon not the opinon of anyone else.
I'm sure someone would find that its ridiculously low.

>I haven't had to pay child support for over 15 yrs, so CS is a moot
>point with me. My interest here is that which would concern my step son,
>not myself.

Nor the best interests of your grandchildren either.
>
>nm

[Fighting For Kids]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:58:39 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> Here is where you are wrong again BOB.
>>
>> "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
>> would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.
>
>Two points - States do not have the authority to write laws that over-ride
>federal IRS laws. And the word "emancipation" refers to a minor child no
>longer living under the direct supervision of a parent and applies only to
>pre-18 children's living situation. You have mixed the state CS laws that
>set the upper limit on CS paid directly to the CP with what I am saying
>about children becoming adults as defined under federal law and how their
>age impacts tax filing options.
>

No it doesnt apply to pre-18 children living situations, it applies to
the states decision of what the age of emancipation is. Which in some
states is NOT 18.

If the court order specifies that the child is "under the parents care
until the age of 21" this would thus entitle the CP to all tax
benefits for that child until the age of 21. If the custody changes
then the new CP would be entitled to this benefit.

There is "no confusion" on any part of mine.

[Gini52]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>
>On 10 Nov 2003 08:35:49 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>Gini52 ...
>>>
>>>We've already heard of cases where a man loses his high paying job, and
>>>the only thing a judge does is tell him to take on another job, or get a
>>>better one.
>>=======
>>I'm not sure what post you are responding to but I don't think I posted anything
>>counter to your opinion. In fact, when my husband's CS was doubled after we were
>>married and had two little ones, the judge told him if he couldn't afford the
>>1200. a month he should get a second job. This is a man who already works about
>>60 hours a week not to mention that our little ones need their father's
>>nurturing as well. Further evidence that the system works in the best interest
>>of the CP and state--certainly *not* the best interest of children--in this
>>case, "our" children.
>
>Why would anyone have MORE children if they couldnt afford the first
>ones? Just have more and more children and use that as an excuse to
>get out of paying support.
====
Who said we couldn't afford the first ones? Do you read this stuff at all or is
your ego so large that you feel empowered to just spew unintelligable crap and
it will be correct?
====
>
>Ive seen some of you post that when a woman has more children they are
>stupid and just do it to get the extra money. However gini has just
>proven why men have additional children, so they can get their support
>lowered or at least thats the underlying reasons for them asking for
>support to be lowered.
===
You are incredibly uninformed. WE did not request a lowering of support. We
contested an increase in support which is in accordance with the controlling
state's jurisdiction. If you can't keep up at least have enough pride to not
humiliate yourself with your floundering intellect.
====
====

[Fighting For Kids]

You mean TJ?? Yes and I just explained that in another post.. old hat
next topic.

I switched newsreaders and just posted with the defaults set.
blah blah..


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:04:24 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message news:...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Here is where you are wrong again BOB.
>> >
>> > "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This
>> > would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support.
>>
>> Two points - States do not have the authority to write laws that over-ride
>> federal IRS laws. And the word "emancipation" refers to a minor child no
>> longer living under the direct supervision of a parent and applies only to
>> pre-18 children's living situation. You have mixed the state CS laws that
>> set the upper limit on CS paid directly to the CP with what I am saying
>> about children becoming adults as defined under federal law and how their
>> age impacts tax filing options.
>
>I forgot to mention one other thing . . . FFK has now switched her identity
>to . "None" is using the exact same cable modem Internet
>hook-up address as Fighting, who used the same cable modem as CJ.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Ok, Regina Juliano Dobert

On 10 Nov 2003 11:15:35 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 10 Nov 2003 08:35:49 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>>
>>>>Gini52 ...
>>>>
>>>>We've already heard of cases where a man loses his high paying job, and
>>>>the only thing a judge does is tell him to take on another job, or get a
>>>>better one.
>>>=======
>>>I'm not sure what post you are responding to but I don't think I posted anything
>>>counter to your opinion. In fact, when my husband's CS was doubled after we were
>>>married and had two little ones, the judge told him if he couldn't afford the
>>>1200. a month he should get a second job. This is a man who already works about
>>>60 hours a week not to mention that our little ones need their father's
>>>nurturing as well. Further evidence that the system works in the best interest
>>>of the CP and state--certainly *not* the best interest of children--in this
>>>case, "our" children.
>>
>>Why would anyone have MORE children if they couldnt afford the first
>>ones? Just have more and more children and use that as an excuse to
>>get out of paying support.
>====
>Who said we couldn't afford the first ones? Do you read this stuff at all or is
>your ego so large that you feel empowered to just spew unintelligable crap and
>it will be correct?
>====
>>
>>Ive seen some of you post that when a woman has more children they are
>>stupid and just do it to get the extra money. However gini has just
>>proven why men have additional children, so they can get their support
>>lowered or at least thats the underlying reasons for them asking for
>>support to be lowered.
>===
>You are incredibly uninformed. WE did not request a lowering of support. We
>contested an increase in support which is in accordance with the controlling
>state's jurisdiction. If you can't keep up at least have enough pride to not
>humiliate yourself with your floundering intellect.
>====
>====

[Dusty]

Never said I was the sister, either. Heh, heh. Hell, I might be his
neighbors cat... :)

You are right in one thing though, they both did something wrong. Him, he
married the stupid cow because he did the "right thing" (she was pregnant).
She wanted someone to be her slave and kowtow to her will, answer her ever
beck and call. When he wouldn't do it, she went after his wallet and all
his worldly possesions.

And yes, you can paste my name in neon lights all over the planet as a
supporter of beat-dead Dads (and Moms)!! I'll enjoy the publicity!! :)

Oh, yes, I do agree with the idea that owing $58k in CS is unacceptable -
especially when nearly 50% of it is actually state fees, penalties and the
12.5% interest per month that they tack on!!!

> wrote in message
...
>
> The question should be, do you ever learn?
>
> Obviously from other posts you are the "sister" that somehow thinks
> its acceptable for your brother to not help pay for the children that
> he makes.
>
> You seem to think that everything is the X's fault, when in fact it
> usually is both that have done something wrong.
>
> How about you add your name to the list of deadbeat supporters, child
> neglectors?
>
> $58,000 for two years is totally unaccpetable. I would say from all
> your posts that your brother is evading child support not down on his
> luck. How many "jobs" has he actually had over this two year period?
>
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:18:24 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >Good grief. Don't you ever learn?
> >
> >I'd like to know just how much you suck from the teat of GovCo's Divorce
> >Industry...
> >
> >Please tell us how much you -gain- over your regular pay check. Unless
> >popping out kids and collecting CS from unsuspecting fathers IS your
job...
> >
> >Oh, and it's not me that owes CS - it's my brother. And at last count,
it
> >was around $58k for 24 months of non-payment because of a lack of work.
> >
> >I've never seen anyone in more dire need of a bitch slap in my life then
you
> >FFK..
> >
> >
> >
> >"Fighting for kids" <adf> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of
> >> deadbeats...
> >
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:
>
> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> >> knows
> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > wrote:
>
> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> >many factors missing in her education...
> >
> >Fighting for kids wrote:
> >>
> >> Snore...
> >>
> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > And this...............
> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> >> support
> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> >> could
> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> >>
> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> >> twice ?
> >>
> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> >> knows
> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> >> > the child.
> >>
> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> >>
> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
> >>
> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> >>
> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> >> to
> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> >>
> >> Where? What study?
> >>
> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> >> > increasing child well-being?
> >>
> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> >> correlate at all.
> >>
> >> The intact family, something not terribly
> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> >> > less).
> >>
> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> >
> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> >doing it...
> >
> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> >
> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> >> > > om...
> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> >> > > causes
> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> >> > abandoned
> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> >> > > parent
> >> > > > > has."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >> > >
> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >

[Dusty]

I'm confused, which fruit kake are we discussing again? FFK, SFM, or
None@...
Or did our favorite little insect attempt to change her spots again and
become William Shatner this time?

A-HA!!! I got it!! FFK/SFM/None@ is from an alternative dimension and is
actually attempting to suck our brains dry!!! Hense all the stupidity from
her. No one can truely be that dumb and be allowed to walk and chew bubble
gum at the same time... But just in case...

Get out the tin-foil hats!!! We're being invaded by the Stupid People of
Quadrent X!!!

"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
> wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
> indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
> researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
>
> fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
> point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
> "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
>
> And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
> article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
> fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> wrote:
> >
> > However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> > >> knows
> > >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is
just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are
other professors that would estimate something different.
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> > >many factors missing in her education...
> > >
> > >Fighting for kids wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Snore...
> > >>
> > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > And this...............
> > >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> > >> support
> > >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And
how
> > >> could
> > >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents.
Custodial
> > >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> > >>
> > >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be
taxed
> > >> twice ?
> > >>
> > >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> > >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children.
Nobody
> > >> knows
> > >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor
William S.
> > >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is
spent on
> > >> > the child.
> > >>
> > >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> > >>
> > >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> > >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and
fines.
> > >>
> > >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on
each
> > >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time
and
> > >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> > >>
> > >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare
payments
> > >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was
presented
> > >> to
> > >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> > >>
> > >> Where? What study?
> > >>
> > >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> > >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was
responsible for
> > >> > increasing child well-being?
> > >>
> > >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on
things
> > >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child
support
> > >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate
such
> > >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent
and no
> > >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two
dont
> > >> correlate at all.
> > >>
> > >> The intact family, something not terribly
> > >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase
during
> > >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support,
like
> > >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring
work, no
> > >> > less).
> > >>
> > >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> > >
> > >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> > >doing it...
> > >
> > >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> > >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works
TWO
> > >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP
has to
> > >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show
"most"
> > >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full
amounts
> > >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> > >
> > >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> > >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> > >
> > >Mel Gamble
> > >
> > >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> > >> > > om...
> > >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this
country that
> > >> > > causes
> > >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers.
They've
> > >> > abandoned
> > >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic
obligation a
> > >> > > parent
> > >> > > > > has."
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child
(as
> > >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the
first
> > >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> > >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father
voluntarily
> > >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> > >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have
addressed the
> > >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >

[Fighting For Kids]

Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!!

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>I'm confused, which fruit kake are we discussing again? FFK, SFM, or
>None@...
>Or did our favorite little insect attempt to change her spots again and
>become William Shatner this time?
>
>A-HA!!! I got it!! FFK/SFM/None@ is from an alternative dimension and is
>actually attempting to suck our brains dry!!! Hense all the stupidity from
>her. No one can truely be that dumb and be allowed to walk and chew bubble
>gum at the same time... But just in case...
>
>Get out the tin-foil hats!!! We're being invaded by the Stupid People of
>Quadrent X!!!
>
>"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
>> wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
>> indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
>> researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
>>
>> fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
>> point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
>> "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
>>
>> And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
>> article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
>> fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
>> > >> knows
>> > >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is
>just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are
>other professors that would estimate something different.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
>> > >many factors missing in her education...
>> > >
>> > >Fighting for kids wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Snore...
>> > >>
>> > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >> > And this...............
>> > >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
>> > >> support
>> > >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And
>how
>> > >> could
>> > >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents.
>Custodial
>> > >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>> > >>
>> > >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be
>taxed
>> > >> twice ?
>> > >>
>> > >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
>> > >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children.
>Nobody
>> > >> knows
>> > >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor
>William S.
>> > >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is
>spent on
>> > >> > the child.
>> > >>
>> > >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>> > >>
>> > >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
>> > >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and
>fines.
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on
>each
>> > >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time
>and
>> > >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare
>payments
>> > >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was
>presented
>> > >> to
>> > >> > this very same committee in 1995).
>> > >>
>> > >> Where? What study?
>> > >>
>> > >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
>> > >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was
>responsible for
>> > >> > increasing child well-being?
>> > >>
>> > >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on
>things
>> > >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child
>support
>> > >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate
>such
>> > >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent
>and no
>> > >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two
>dont
>> > >> correlate at all.
>> > >>
>> > >> The intact family, something not terribly
>> > >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase
>during
>> > >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support,
>like
>> > >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring
>work, no
>> > >> > less).
>> > >>
>> > >> And raising a child alone is not work?
>> > >
>> > >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
>> > >doing it...
>> > >
>> > >> A recent study showed that a stay at
>> > >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works
>TWO
>> > >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP
>has to
>> > >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show
>"most"
>> > >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full
>amounts
>> > >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>> > >
>> > >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
>> > >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
>> > >
>> > >Mel Gamble
>> > >
>> > >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> > >> ...
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
>> > >> > > om...
>> > >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this
>country that
>> > >> > > causes
>> > >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers.
>They've
>> > >> > abandoned
>> > >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic
>obligation a
>> > >> > > parent
>> > >> > > > > has."
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child
>(as
>> > >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the
>first
>> > >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
>> > >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father
>voluntarily
>> > >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
>> > >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have
>addressed the
>> > >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> wrote:

>Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
>wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
>indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
>researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
>
>fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
>point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
>"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
>
>And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
>article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
>fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
>
>Mel Gamble
>
wrote:
>>
>> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
>> >> knows
>> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
>> >many factors missing in her education...
>> >
>> >Fighting for kids wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Snore...
>> >>
>> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > And this...............
>> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
>> >> support
>> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
>> >> could
>> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
>> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>> >>
>> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
>> >> twice ?
>> >>
>> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
>> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
>> >> knows
>> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
>> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
>> >> > the child.
>> >>
>> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>> >>
>> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
>> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
>> >>
>> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
>> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
>> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>> >>
>> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
>> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
>> >> to
>> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
>> >>
>> >> Where? What study?
>> >>
>> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
>> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
>> >> > increasing child well-being?
>> >>
>> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
>> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
>> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
>> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
>> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
>> >> correlate at all.
>> >>
>> >> The intact family, something not terribly
>> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
>> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
>> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
>> >> > less).
>> >>
>> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
>> >
>> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
>> >doing it...
>> >
>> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
>> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
>> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
>> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
>> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
>> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>> >
>> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
>> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
>> >
>> >Mel Gamble
>> >
>> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
>> >> > > om...
>> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
>> >> > > causes
>> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
>> >> > abandoned
>> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
>> >> > > parent
>> >> > > > > has."
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
>> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
>> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
>> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
>> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
>> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
>> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >

[Dusty]

It's "you're" as in "you are" or "You're confused."
I believe you where attempting to say, "You're confused, it doesn't surprise
me." Or you could have been attempting to say, "You have me confused, which
doesn't surprise me." Or it may have been you where attempting to blather..
"I'm so confused, don't surprise me!" Or you may well have thought to say,
but your fingers couldn't move to the appropriate keys because of the
medication you're on.. "I'm so stupid, I can't form coherent sentences much
less type them in an intelligible manner for others to read."

Which one is it?

And while you're at it - pick a friggin' name and stick to it!!!!

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!!
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

[snip]

[Melvin Gamble]

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
> You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > wrote:
>
> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
> >
> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
> >
> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> >> >> knows
> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> >> >many factors missing in her education...
> >> >
> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Snore...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > And this...............
> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> >> >> support
> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> >> >> could
> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> >> >>
> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> >> >> twice ?
> >> >>
> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> >> >> knows
> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> >> >> > the child.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> >> >> to
> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> >> >>
> >> >> Where? What study?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
> >> >>
> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> >> >> correlate at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> >> >> > less).
> >> >>
> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> >> >
> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> >> >doing it...
> >> >
> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> >> >
> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> >> >
> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >
> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > om...
> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> >> >> > > causes
> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> >> >> > abandoned
> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> >> >> > > parent
> >> >> > > > > has."
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >

[Fighting For Kids]

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> wrote:

>So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
>
>Fighting For Kids wrote:
>>
>> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
>> You are such an ass.
>
>For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
>doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
>> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
>> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
>> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
>> >
>> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
>> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
>> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
>> >
>> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
>> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
>> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
>> >
>> >Mel Gamble
>> >
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
>> >> >> knows
>> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
>> >> >many factors missing in her education...
>> >> >
>> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Snore...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > And this...............
>> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
>> >> >> support
>> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
>> >> >> could
>> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
>> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
>> >> >> twice ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
>> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
>> >> >> knows
>> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
>> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
>> >> >> > the child.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
>> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
>> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
>> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
>> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where? What study?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
>> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
>> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
>> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
>> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
>> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
>> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
>> >> >> correlate at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
>> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
>> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
>> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
>> >> >> > less).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
>> >> >doing it...
>> >> >
>> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
>> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
>> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
>> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
>> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
>> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
>> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
>> >> >
>> >> >Mel Gamble
>> >> >
>> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > > om...
>> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
>> >> >> > > causes
>> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
>> >> >> > abandoned
>> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
>> >> >> > > parent
>> >> >> > > > > has."
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
>> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
>> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
>> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
>> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
>> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
>> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >

[AZ Astrea]

I like you. I really do.
I hate poor spelling and really bad grammatical errors. And I don't believe
they should be overlooked just because someone wants to be creative.

~AZ~

"Dusty" > wrote in message ...
> It's "you're" as in "you are" or "You're confused."
> I believe you where attempting to say, "You're confused, it doesn't
surprise
> me." Or you could have been attempting to say, "You have me confused,
which
> doesn't surprise me." Or it may have been you where attempting to
blather..
> "I'm so confused, don't surprise me!" Or you may well have thought to
say,
> but your fingers couldn't move to the appropriate keys because of the
> medication you're on.. "I'm so stupid, I can't form coherent sentences
much
> less type them in an intelligible manner for others to read."
>
> Which one is it?
>
> And while you're at it - pick a friggin' name and stick to it!!!!
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!!
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
> responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
> another post.
>
> Keep up ding dong
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > wrote:
>
> >So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
> >
> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >>
> >> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
> >> You are such an ass.
> >
> >For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
> >doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
> >> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
> >> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
> >> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
> >> >
> >> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
> >> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
> >> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
> >> >
> >> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
> >> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
> >> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
> >> >
> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> >> >> >many factors missing in her education...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Snore...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > And this...............
> >> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> >> >> >> support
> >> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> >> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> >> >> >> twice ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> >> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> >> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> >> >> >> > the child.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> >> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> >> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> >> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> >> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where? What study?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> >> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> >> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> >> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> >> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> >> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> >> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> >> >> >> correlate at all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
> >> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> >> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> >> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> >> >> >> > less).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> >> >> >doing it...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> >> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> >> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> >> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> >> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> >> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> >> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> > > om...
> >> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> >> >> >> > > causes
> >> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> >> >> >> > abandoned
> >> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> >> >> >> > > parent
> >> >> >> > > > > has."
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> >> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> >> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> >> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> >> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> >> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> >> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >

[Fighting For Kids]

Sorry but I dont think so.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> wrote:

>Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
>of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>Fighting For Kids wrote:
>>
>> You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
>> responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
>> another post.
>>
>> Keep up ding dong
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
>> >
>> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
>> >> You are such an ass.
>> >
>> >For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
>> >doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....
>> >
>> >Mel Gamble
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
>> >> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
>> >> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
>> >> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
>> >> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
>> >> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
>> >> >
>> >> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
>> >> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
>> >> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
>> >> >
>> >> >Mel Gamble
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
>> >> >> >> knows
>> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
>> >> >> >many factors missing in her education...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Snore...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > And this...............
>> >> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
>> >> >> >> support
>> >> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
>> >> >> >> could
>> >> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
>> >> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
>> >> >> >> twice ?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
>> >> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
>> >> >> >> knows
>> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
>> >> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
>> >> >> >> > the child.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
>> >> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
>> >> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
>> >> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
>> >> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Where? What study?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
>> >> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
>> >> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
>> >> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
>> >> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
>> >> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
>> >> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
>> >> >> >> correlate at all.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
>> >> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
>> >> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
>> >> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
>> >> >> >> > less).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
>> >> >> >doing it...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
>> >> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
>> >> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
>> >> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
>> >> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
>> >> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
>> >> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Mel Gamble
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > > om...
>> >> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
>> >> >> >> > > causes
>> >> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
>> >> >> >> > abandoned
>> >> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
>> >> >> >> > > parent
>> >> >> >> > > > > has."
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
>> >> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
>> >> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
>> >> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
>> >> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
>> >> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
>> >> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >

[Melvin Gamble]

: > : > : > : >

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> Sorry but I dont think.
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > wrote:
>
> >Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
> >of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >>
> >> You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
> >> responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
> >> another post.
> >>
> >> Keep up ding dong
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
> >> >
> >> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
> >> >> You are such an ass.
> >> >
> >> >For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
> >> >doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....
> >> >
> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
> >> >> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
> >> >> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
> >> >> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
> >> >> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
> >> >> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
> >> >> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
> >> >> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> >> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> >> >> >> >many factors missing in her education...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Snore...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > And this...............
> >> >> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> >> >> >> >> support
> >> >> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> >> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> >> >> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> >> >> >> >> twice ?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> >> >> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> >> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> >> >> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> >> >> >> >> > the child.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> >> >> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> >> >> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> >> >> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> >> >> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Where? What study?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> >> >> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> >> >> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> >> >> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> >> >> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> >> >> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> >> >> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> >> >> >> >> correlate at all.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
> >> >> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> >> >> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> >> >> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> >> >> >> >> > less).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> >> >> >> >doing it...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> >> >> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> >> >> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> >> >> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> >> >> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> >> >> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> >> >> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > > om...
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> >> >> >> >> > > causes
> >> >> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> >> >> >> >> > abandoned
> >> >> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> >> >> >> >> > > parent
> >> >> >> >> > > > > has."
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> >> >> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> >> >> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> >> >> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> >> >> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> >> >> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> >> >> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >

[Melvin Gamble]

: > : > : > : >

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> Sorry but I dont think.
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> > wrote:
>
> >Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
> >of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."
> >
> >Mel Gamble
> >
> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >>
> >> You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
> >> responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
> >> another post.
> >>
> >> Keep up ding dong
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
> >> >
> >> >Fighting For Kids wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
> >> >> You are such an ass.
> >> >
> >> >For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
> >> >doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....
> >> >
> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
> >> >> >wrote: ">> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
> >> >> >indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
> >> >> >researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
> >> >> >point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
> >> >> >"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
> >> >> >article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
> >> >> >fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
> >> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
> >> >> >> >many factors missing in her education...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fighting for kids wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Snore...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > And this...............
> >> >> >> >> > Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
> >> >> >> >> support
> >> >> >> >> > laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
> >> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> >> > it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
> >> >> >> >> > parents can spend this tax-free gift
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
> >> >> >> >> twice ?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> on anything they want: booze, drugs,
> >> >> >> >> > new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
> >> >> >> >> knows
> >> >> >> >> > how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
> >> >> >> >> > Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
> >> >> >> >> > the child.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
> >> >> >> >> > that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
> >> >> >> >> parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
> >> >> >> >> fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
> >> >> >> >> > rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> > this very same committee in 1995).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Where? What study?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
> >> >> >> >> > differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
> >> >> >> >> > increasing child well-being?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
> >> >> >> >> such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
> >> >> >> >> has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
> >> >> >> >> things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
> >> >> >> >> one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
> >> >> >> >> correlate at all.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The intact family, something not terribly
> >> >> >> >> > popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
> >> >> >> >> > economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
> >> >> >> >> > welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
> >> >> >> >> > less).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And raising a child alone is not work?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
> >> >> >> >doing it...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> A recent study showed that a stay at
> >> >> >> >> home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
> >> >> >> >> full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
> >> >> >> >> do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
> >> >> >> >> NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
> >> >> >> >> ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
> >> >> >> >assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Mel Gamble
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > "Matt D" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > > om...
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
> >> >> >> >> > > causes
> >> >> >> >> > > > > poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
> >> >> >> >> > abandoned
> >> >> >> >> > > > > their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
> >> >> >> >> > > parent
> >> >> >> >> > > > > has."
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
> >> >> >> >> > > > opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
> >> >> >> >> > > > place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
> >> >> >> >> > > "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
> >> >> >> >> > > abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
> >> >> >> >> > > demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
> >> >> >> >> > > question directly have concluded otherwise."
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >